Commentary : 2 Views of Laguna Laurel Project : In favor of: The project’s manager says it will enhance the area, protect the environment.

A Southern friend of mine says that his favorite book of all time is “An Unbiased History of the Civil War Written from the South’s Perspective.” In the same spirit, this is an unbiased view of the Laguna Laurel Planned Community written from the perspective of the fellow who is coordinating it.

It won’t surprise you that I believe Laguna Laurel will be a wonderful community, planned and built to the high standards that I have maintained professionally, and upon which my company has built an international reputation for excellence.

It will provide needed homes close to six major job centers. It was planned that way to reduce commutes and traffic congestion and to increase transportation capacity. And it contains a variety of housing, at that. The mix includes single-family homes, town homes and apartments, some of them at below-market rates in accoradnce with county affordable housing guideliens.

And it will achieve this while preserving and protecting the rugged beauty of Laguna and Laurel canyons.

What’s in it for people who have no plans to live there?

I believe plenty. Such as:

* Completion of the remaining link in the San Joaquin Hills Corridor, which will traverse this project, providing an alternative route between San Juan Capistrano and Irvine. It will relieve traffic on the Santa Ana and San Diego freeways and on Coast Highway. The Irvine Co. will dedicate land and provide partial grading for it.

* Increased personal safety on the widened and realigned Laguna Canyon Road that this project will finance. It currently is a deathtrap.

* Preservation of the most environmentally sensitive portions of Laguna and Laurel canyons. It establishes in public ownership a regional open-space area unmatched in Southern California. Habitat for wildlife will be preserved. And it will provide the last links to a long-awaited regional wilderness trail system from the mountains to the sea.

These are all conditions attached to completing Laguna Laurel. The county defines them as public benefits to the entire county that will be secured without costing its taxpayers a cent.

My responsibility is to move this future community through the labyrinth of county regulations and procedures that assures that the law is followed and we live up to our commitments.

I’ve been at it for 20 months. My company has been at it for more that 10 years, during which the project has been cut back and modified to meet county and community concerns and broaden its public benefits

In fact, of the two sides whose views are represented on this page, ours is the only side that has compromised. We’ve done it repeatedly in search of community consensus. Our recent good-faith effort to explore selling portions of the project property to the city of Laguna Beach were rejected, and with derision from some.

In recent months, I’ve worked with a team of more than 20 experts in the fields of hydrology, biology, liminology, land planning and engineering to assure that we solve any potential problems. Along the way, we’ll implement more than 136 specific measures mandated by the county to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. That includes saving Laguna Lakes, and better managing runoff through the canyon.

I don’t consider myself a political person. I was raised to believe that ideas that provide the most good to the most people will prevail. I admit that I often go home frustrated that the facts about this project are not known to everyone.

But I am impressed every day at the special efforts being made by the county and our company to be responsive to the demands of disparate interests--some of them in conflict--for more housing, increased open space, improved mobility but no new roads, better recreation, managed growth and no new taxes.

To me, Laguna Laurel critics have an agenda beyond saving open space. (After all, two-thirds of the project area, more that 1,200 acres, are being preserved forever.)

It is evident to me that their agenda rests on a broader foundation that all growth is bad, even if it is sensibly and sensitively managed. Specifically, they seek to stop construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor.

The city of Laguna Beach and the Laguna Greenbelt have been vigorous and virtually alone in their opposition to the corridor. They also oppose improvements to Laguna Canyon Road, even if the cost is measured in human lives.

To stop the Laguna Laurel project is to stop these related transportation projects. I don’t believe these views are widely shared.

And I’ve come to think that these critics go to great lengths to mask their real goal of stopping transportation improvements through demonstrations that focus on “preserving” open space and “saving” canyons that our project, frankly, preserves and saves.